The other day, Glenn Reynolds linked to this article about the predicament of San Jose, in which paying for the government’s workforce, especially its pensions, is eating up an ever growing amount of the budget:

“This is one of the dichotomies of California: I am cutting services to my low- and moderate-income people . . . to pay really generous benefits for public employees who make a good living and have an even better retirement,” [Democrat Mayor Chuck Reed] said in an interview in his office overlooking downtown.

This outcome is probably inevitable once we allow the people employed in government to bring in union organizers whose primary service is to keep employees’ remuneration growing.  The employees get a vote at the negotiating table, and they get a vote at the ballot box.  They can create an atmosphere of great reward for politicians who’ll be pliant as they represent taxpayers in contract negotiations.

Then, when the labor organizations merge into national behemoths, they become a shadow government, able to shift resources around the country and stick with (or oppose) politicians throughout every layer of government.

Of course, public sector unions gain other advantages.  Because they’re negotiating with government, whose cards must be open to public review, their negotiations can become something more akin to demands.  And because the employees ultimately perform the work that elected officials manage, they’re in a position to make them look good or bad.  (Think the Cranston parking ticket scandal.)

It isn’t at all surprising that, under these circumstances, the central focus of government becomes supporting its employees, even as all of the things its supposed to be doing (they’re supposed to be doing) fall by the wayside for lack of resources.